Anthony Dwayne Hill v. State of Texas ( 2009 )


Menu:
  • Opinion filed May 21, 2009
    In The
    Eleventh Court of Appeals
    ___________
    No. 11-08-00218-CR
    __________
    ANTHONY DWAYNE HILL, Appellant
    V.
    STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 385th District Court
    Midland County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. CR-28770
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Anthony Dwayne Hill appeals the judgment of the trial court revoking his community
    supervision. We affirm.
    Procedural Background
    The trial court originally convicted appellant of possession of a firearm by a felon and
    assessed his punishment at confinement for ten years. However, the trial court suspended the
    imposition of the sentence and placed appellant on community supervision. At the hearing on the
    State’s motion to revoke, appellant decided not to accept the State’s offer of an agreed punishment
    of four years confinement and entered pleas of true to both allegations. The trial court found the
    allegations to be true, revoked appellant’s community supervision, and imposed a sentence of
    confinement for eight years.
    Issues on Appeal
    Appellant argues that his due process rights were violated when his community supervision
    was revoked and that the punishment assessed was excessive. We disagree.
    Revocation of Community Supervision
    In a community supervision revocation hearing, the State has the burden of proving by a
    preponderance of the evidence that a condition of community supervision has been violated.
    Rickels v. State, 
    202 S.W.3d 759
    , 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Cobb v. State, 
    851 S.W.2d 871
    , 874
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Proof of one violation of the terms and conditions of community
    supervision is sufficient to support the revocation. McDonald v. State, 
    608 S.W.2d 192
    (Tex. Crim.
    App.1980); Taylor v. State, 
    604 S.W.2d 175
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Moses v. State, 
    590 S.W.2d 469
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). The trial court is the trier of the facts and determines the weight and
    credibility of the testimony. Garrett v. State, 
    619 S.W.2d 172
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); Barnett v.
    State, 
    615 S.W.2d 220
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). A plea of true alone is sufficient to support the trial
    court’s determination to revoke. 
    Moses, 590 S.W.2d at 470
    ; Cole v. State, 
    578 S.W.2d 127
    , 128
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). Appellate review of an order revoking community supervision is limited
    to the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion. 
    Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at 763
    ; Cordona
    v. State, 
    665 S.W.2d 492
    , 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984).
    Appellant entered pleas of true to both allegations that he violated the terms and conditions
    of his community supervision. The trial court found both allegations to be true. Either allegation is
    sufficient to support the trial court’s decision to revoke, and either plea is sufficient to support the
    revocation. Appellant has failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion or violated his
    due process rights by revoking his community supervision. The first issue is overruled.
    Punishment Assessed
    The trial court assessed punishment within the range authorized by the legislature under TEX .
    PENAL CODE ANN . § 12.34 (Vernon 2003), § 46.04 (Vernon Supp. 2008). A penalty assessed within
    2
    the range of punishment established by the legislature will not be disturbed on appeal. Jackson v.
    State, 
    680 S.W.2d 809
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1984); Bradfield v. State, 
    42 S.W.3d 350
    , 354 (Tex.
    App.—Eastland 2001, pet. ref’d).
    The second issue is overruled.
    Holding
    The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
    RICK STRANGE
    JUSTICE
    May 21, 2009
    Do not publish. See TEX . R. APP . P. 47.2(b).
    Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
    McCall, J., and Strange, J.
    3